M/S Ranka Buildcon Sole ... vs Lalludas Son Of Ramdev Das Swami
2022 Latest Caselaw 7723 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2021

M/s Ranka Buildcon Sole Proprietor Firm, Through Its Proprietor
Arun Kumar Ranka Son Of Shri Ratan Lal Ranka, Resident Of
590, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.    Lalludas Son Of Ramdev Das Swami, Aged About 59
      Years, Resident Of Patelon Ka Mohalla, Chhapri, Tonk.
2.    Mahadev Das Chela Kishandas Dadupanthi Dadudwara,
      Narayana, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 10/37,
      Dadudrwra Narayana, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur.
3.    Chetan Das Swami Son Of Shri Rampal Das Dadupanthi,
      Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Dadudayal Ashram,
      Niwai, Tonk, Rajasthan.
4.    Rajesh Swami Son Of Shri Harnath Swami, Aged About 32
      Years, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Jamat Niwai, District Tonk
      (Rajasthan).
5.    Bhagwan Sahay Son Of Shri Nolaram, Aged About 28
      Years, Resident Of Kapadiawas Khurd, Post Gaadota,
      Tehsil Maujamabad, District Jaipur.
6.    Ratan Lal Son Of Shri Ramdhan, Resident Of Purani Basti,
      Jaipur.
7.    State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt.
      Secretariat, Jaipur.
8.    Collector Jaipur, Office Of District Collector, Banipark
      Jaipur.
9.    Department Of Local Self, State Of Rajasthan, Through
      Director Local Self Department, Jaipur.
10.   Nagar Nigam Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, Through Chief
      Executive Officer, Office Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
11.   Deputy Registrar-Vi, Registrar Office, Jaipur.
12.   Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
      Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
13.   Dadu Sampradaye Main Peeth Narayana, District Jaipur,
      Through Mahaan Sant Peethadheeshwar Shri Gopaldas Ji
      Dadupanthi, Dadu Ashram Narayana (Narayana) Jaipur.


                    (Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:34 AM)
                                             (2 of 7)               [CW-6942/2021]


                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Choudhary with Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nachiketa Pareek Mr. Rajendra Pareek Major R.P. Singh AAG with Mr. Aditya Singh, Ms. Devyani Rathore, AGC Mr. C.V. Singh for respondents No.7 to

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 01.12.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 09.12.2022

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 and

227 of Constitution of India against the order dt. 3.2.2021 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.103/2019 (39/2017) titled as

Lallu Das & ors. vs. M/s. Ranka Buildcon & ors whereby the issues

No.8 & 9 regarding the court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the

court were decided in favour of plaintiff/respondents and against

the petitioner/defendant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four of the

present respondents alongwith four other persons had filed a

Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition was registered as D.B.

CW (PIL) No.4606/2016 titled as Lallu Das Swami & ors. vs. Chief

Secretary Govt. and said writ petition was dismissed in limine vide

order dt. 8.8.2016 in which no direction was given for entertaining

the civil suit or condonation of delay but four respondents who

were petitioner in PIL alongwith two other persons had filed the

civil suit for declaring the sale deed dt.11.12.2012 as null and void

and restoration of possession of suit property. Learned counsel for

(3 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]

the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and said application was dismissed by

the trial court vide order dt. 21.2.2018. Petitioner preferred a

revision against the said order, High Court vide order dt. 7.2.2020

directed the trial court to frame the issue of court fees and

pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and decide as a preliminary

issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court

framed as many as 13 issues on 3.3.2020. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that issue No.8 was related insufficient

court fees and issue No.9 was related to pecuniary jurisdiction of

the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial

court vide order dt. 3.2.2021 decided both the issues in favour of

respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior

to disputed sale, Mahant Kailash Das had sold 254.17 square

meter (304 square yard) land behind children (Baby Park),

Museum road, Village Kishanpole, District & Tehsil Jaipur situated

in khasra No.326 to 330 to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private

Limited on 12.6.2008. That sale was not challenged by anyone

including respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that clearly shows that disputed land property is of Mahant Kailash

Das not of Dadu Sampradaye. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that UIT, Jaipur acquired 1 bigha 18 biswa land located in

khasra No.350/2, Village Kishanpole and Tehshil Jaipur and said

land was in Khatedari of Mahant Kailash Das and award of

Rs.23,171/- was credited in favour of Mahant Prahlad Das by land

acquisition officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Mahant Prahlad Das challenged the said proceedings and during

the reference Mahant Prahlad Das was expired and Mahant

Kailash Das was brought on record as legal heirs and award was

(4 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]

increased to Rs.46,169 with 4% interest and said money was

deposited in account of Mahant Kailash Das. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and

he had purchased the disputed land on consideration of

Rs.27,29,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

suit property was also declared as personal property of Mahant

Prahlad Das during his life time by Collector (Jagir) Jaipur vide

order dt. 13.3.1969. So, Dadu Sampradaye as well as respondents

have nothing to do with the land in question. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that respondents wanted to cancel the sale

deed dt. 11.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that respondents cleverly drafted the petition and deliberately

choose to value the suit under Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan

Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 in order to avoid court

fees and altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 24(A) of the

Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, respondents

had to pay the court fees on the market value of the suit property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Judge (Junior

Division) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. So, order of the

trial court dt. 3.2.2021 be quashed and directed the trial court to

return the suit for presentation before the appropriate

jurisdictional court with appropriate court fees.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments:-1. Golden Tringle Fort and Palace Pvt. Ltd.

vs. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari & ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition

No.638/2002 decided on 19.9.2002; 2. Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha,

Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and anr. reported in (2008)

11 SCC 753; 3. Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs.

(5 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]

Praveen D. Desai (Dead) thr. Lrs & ors. 2015(2) Civil Court Cases

628 (S.C.); 4. M/s. Shakti Sut Udhyog through its Partners vs.

Additional District Judge, Ajmer in AIR 2013 Raj. 74. 5. Executive

Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koli Trust, Virudhunagar

vs. Chandran & ors. 2018 SAR (Civil Supp. 1) 98. 6. Ram Saran &

anr. vs. Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 1972 SC 2685; 7. Dipak Bose @

Haripada vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 2686. 8. J.

Vasanthi & ors. vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By Lrs. & ors.

2017 SAR (Civil )940; 9. Vithal Tukaram Kadam & anr. vs.

Vamanaro Sawalaram Bhosale & ors. 2017 SAR (Civil) 951; 10.

Makhan Lal vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City in S.B. Civil

Revision No.104/1977, decided on 13.1.1978. 11. Prahlad Bagdi &

anr. vs. Smt. Gayatri Agarwal & ors. 2021 (1) RLW 588 (Raj.);

12. Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs. Rukmani Devi & anr. in S.B. Civil

Revision No.153/2016 decided on 3.2.2017. 13. Smt. Kamli Devi

vs. Smt. Rampyari in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022 decided

on 3.8.2022.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that petitioners are not a party in the sale deed and

they are followers of Dadu Sampradaye. They do not want to

cancel the sale deed because sale deed is ab initio void. Mahant

Kailash Das had no right to sale the disputed property because

said property belongs to Dadu Sampradaye. So, trial court rightly

came to the conclusion that suit is adequately valued and within

jurisdiction of the civil court, Junior Division. So, petition be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

following judgments:1. Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain

(6 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]

Verma and anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2867; 2.

Rathnayarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimal AIR 1961 SC 1299; 3.Kamal

Engineering Works vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors. (1989) 2 RLW

463; 4. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & ors. in

Civil Appeal No.2811-2813/2010 decided on 29.3.2010; 5. Esah

vs. The Wakf Committee, Kota in S.B. Civil Misc.

AppealNo.14/1978 decided on 20.11.1987; 6. Kedar Agarwal &

anr. vs. Rajkumar Agarwal & ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7484 of 2017 decided on 3.9.2020.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

It is an admitted position that respondents wanted to declare

null and void the sale deed dt.11.12.2012. Petitioner had

purchased the suit property on consideration of Rs.27,29,00,000/.

Respondent failed to submit any document regarding ownership of

disputed land in the name of Dadu Sampradaye. Prior to this,

Mahant Kailash Das also sold part of the disputed land to M/s.

Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private Limited by registered sale deed

dt.12.6.2008 and the said sale deed was not challenged by

anyone including respondents. Respondents wrongly filed the suit

by invoking Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, 1961. Respondent had to file the civil suit by

invoking Section 24A of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Act, 1961. So, in my considered opinion, trial court

wrongly came to the conclusion that petitioner can file the suit by

invoking provision of Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees

and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. So, finding of the trial court

(7 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]

regarding the issues No.8 & 9 in favour of respondent against the

petitioner deserves to be set aside.

Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and

order of the trial court dt.3.2.2021 is set aside and trial court is

directed to return the civil suit to the respondent for presenting

before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 15.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)